Monday, December 11, 2017

GDS3 Prep: A Set in Four Cards

A Set in Four Cards is an exercise we've occasionally done around these parts, and a fantastic way to prepare for GDS3. The goal of the exercise is to tell your audience as much as you possibly can about a hypothetical set merely by showing them four cards. The only words you have to communicate your set's themes, mechanics, and hooks are through cardnames and rules text (and the set name).

This post is an open invitation to submit sets in four cards. You can post them here in the comments or on twitter. I'll do the renders and review as much as I can. I'm skeptical that GDS3 is going to be as focused on world/set-building as GDS2 was, but thinking about card designs in the context of the set they're in is a crucial skill no matter what the GDS3 challenges us with.

So, by way of an example and posted without further comment, may I present:

Sun Devourer 4BB (Mythic)Legendary Creature - Wolf4/4Awe 3 (Prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME by creatures unless their controller pays 3. Whenever a spell or ability targets CARDNAME, counter it unless its controller pays 3.)Ragnarok - When you play your eighth land, if ~ is on the battlefield or in your graveyard, you may pay {4}{B}{B}. If you do, each opponent discards their hand.

Huh. Usually I think about this sort of thing for ages, but a whole bunch of ideas just came together in my head. Jay's previous post reminds me I should probably have stretched to include a creature combat mechanic instead of one of these ones. And maybe a regular norse mythological creature.

Chosen of Odin-- Ragnarok is mechanically a very neat way of making things relevant in the endgame. This implementation doesn't scream "end of the world" to me, but I'm sure Creative could work around that somehow. I take it Ragnarok is an ability word that just refers to the trigger? If so, this seems like an unusual effect to put on a white common-- I'd be expecting a stat boost or something.

Blizzard Raiders-- Ah, the return of snow! It's almost as much of a design trap as Contraptions used to be, but a Norse-themed block really does beg for it. Nothing particularly excites me about this implementation-- so far it just looks like supertype tribal. The "Ship" type confused and bothered me until I read it as a signal that we're going to have Vikings. Uncommon confuses me too, unless it's purely for power level.

Thunder God-- aha, here's Thor! Good call on making the Norse gods normal killable creatures. It's a natural mechanical change and very on-flavor. But I'm not buying the text box. I get a big hammer and that's it, nothing more exciting? Sunforger is much more resonant.

Sun Devourer- OK, I see Ragnarok is even broader than I realized. Not super happy with this ability-- feels too wordy. Awe, on the other hand, is sweet (and I think it qualifies as a creature combat mechanic). I'd recommend simplifying it to: "Whenever ~ would be dealt damage, prevent that damage unless an opponent pays N."

Overall, I get the impression that the set is very top-down Norse (more top-down than Theros or Amonkhet) and leans heavily on Ragnarok and Snow. I would've liked to see a noncreature spell here, maybe in the rare spot, showing off a fourth mechanic or set theme. That would have told me more than "yep, we're doing all the super-well-known Norse mythological figures," which I was getting plenty of already.

In case that sounds to critical, though... I'm generally a fan of the set concept. I've tried to work out mechanics for a Norse block myself, and it's something WotC will inevitably do in some form. Ragnarok and Awe both get my thumbs-up, and Snow might too if you can find a more interesting place to take it.

Thank you, that sounds about right, and I took quite positively -- it loudly hit all the notes I'd thought to try for, and I agree with the things you pointed out as potential holes. Hitting two well-received mechanics was better than I hoped for!

I should make a specific checklist for things to include in a set concept (Jay's last post does a lot of that):

* Clearly shouted flavour (obviously I hit that loudly here, and I think I specifically got "end of the world with snow and battle and vikings" not just "norse")* Some "wow" cards and mechanics* Multiple mechanics* A clear mechanical idea of the set -- this is harder to convey and what I didn't have enough of in mind here, what factions? what common mechanics? What style fast/slow/intricate (a la kaladesh)/evil (a la phyrexia)/etc?* What else?

Add: Oops! Maybe it would have been better to make ragnarok a keyword for "come back from the dead", but make Fenrir's sundevouring ability a rider that happens in addition to that? Or just spell out a parallel trigger to the keyword?

Then, raganrok on simple commons could stay implied, and I could make another common card that tried to represent some of the things I hadn't thought about.

I agree, awe is a creature mechanic, but I'm not sure if it's ok to have much of it at common, which suggests we need another mechanic (whether a keyword or not) to define the feel of the set.

Come to think of it, it would be an interesting exercise to choose four cards for published sets, to work out what the important things to convey are.

My single biggest note is that I don't understand what Ragnarok means because it's so different on these two cards. Either make it a keyword as you mused, or make the trigger universal and the effects related in some way.

I see what you mean about confusing, but "same trigger, same small selection of effects for common creatures, splashy effects for rare creatures" works for landfall, what do I need to change to get to more that space?

If I'm changing the creative, I could go with a name for ragnarok related to "seven", would that help? (uh, I see I typo'd one of the triggers, they are supposed to all be the same number!)

Of course, if I go with "always a resurrection, with an extra bonus on rare creatures" it can go back to being a keyword.

I was going to do renders and have full reviews for these, but people in the comments have been providing great feedback already, so let's maybe keep these here.

Ice Age was norse inspired, but that was a long time ago. I suppose my biggest design question is the use of snow mechanic in a spiritual successor to Ice Age. It would be like if whatever the next Japanese-inspired plane was highly mechanically similar to Kamigawa. It could make sense, but let's distinguish our planes.

Thor is an interesting take, but its missing some splash. Obviously Norse world needs a take on gods, but the best thing about these challenges is that you can tell us that there are gods without showing us one. An uncommon god lord would tell us so much more about the set than a single depiction of a god would.

Very cool submission overall. Norse world is definitely on the shortlist, and this is making think a lot about what else might be in it.

I'll cheat a little and pick four cards from a set I designed a while back.Lone CentaurCity PlannerMaster of LightningAgammemnon the Proud(You'll notice that a couple of my mechanic names match those from Theros. The reminder text for heroic is: "As long as this creature is undamaged, spells and abilities opponents control can't remove it from the battlefield.")

My version of heroic stops unconditional removal (destroy, exile, bounce, Run Aground) from working unless the target has already been dealt damage in the same turn. Direct damage still works, and due to the state-based-actions loophole so does -X/-X.

I don't get Lone Centaur or its' monstrous mechanic at all. Is the thing that defines monstrosity in this set the ability to split yourself into smaller replicas of yourself? Is my Centaur Lone or not?

Yeah, my monstrosity was originally trying to capture the feel of "more than one head". So monstrosity N starts out with N +1/+1 counters and can turn them into 1/1s by paying 1 each. Then I played all kinds of weird tricks with ETB and sac abilities to make that relevant. Not the most successful design, and Lone Centaur is not the most flavorful example (that would be the mythic Hydra with monstrous X).

Lone Centaur - Set symbol and centaur tell me this is supposed to be greekish, but this doesn't really tell me much else about the set other than the mechanic. Which would be fine, except there's such a disconnect between a mechanic named monstrous, its presence on a 2/2 -> 1/1 creature, and what the mechanic is actually doing.

City Planner - This tells me that there are temple auras in the set, which is a cool design decision. The planner's Cultured ability tells me that they add a tap ability to the land, but it still feels bland overall. The card tells me a lot about the set, but doesn't make me excited about it.

I'm pretty sure invoke is meant to turn your Master of Lightning into a renewable shock, but that's not how it works the way its written. That would have to be an ability word that parrots the creature's activated ability. As is, it just makes it hard to lose to a discard if you have R open. Based on context, I'm guessing that your sets gods are spirits, which is absolutely fine. Was this designed pre-Threros or in response to it?

Heroic is a frustrating mechanic because its venn diagram is part hexproof, part indestructible. It's a little strange as a named set mechanic because its so narrow. As a keyword ability, other cards can reference it, but because of its narrowness it almost becomes a hashtag mechanic.

My biggest takeaway from this is, if I was designing a greek-inspired set that wasn't Theros, what would it look like?

Sengir Telemancer- I thoroughly approve of ability-wording the Sengir Vampire trigger. It's a shame we had to see this example, though, since a 1/3 flier will hardly ever trigger this, and when it does it's not the most relevant effect. A 2/3 flier for 4 would be more exciting.

Willow's Embrace- I was with you until you got to meditate. It's a fascinating ability but there are a couple of problems with it. First, too powerful (though maybe that's specific to this effect) and easy to trigger. Second, not a flavor hit, and a Homelands nostalgia set had better be flavorful. Third, it's a second ability word with no keyword mechanics in sight, which I'm not too happy with.

Serra Angel- A reprint? Gutsy. I gather we're going all in on the nostalgia feel (hopefully with the exception of the power level and Limited gameplay).

Joven- This card is a delight. I'm already mentally building a Commander deck where I grab opponents' artifacts and throw them around. I love the mechanical setup and I get a perfect sense of what Joven is like, even without any art.

Overall: I very much get that this is a faithful "return to Homelands" set, but aside from one excellent rare in Joven and a solid mechanic in Drain, I don't have much sense of how you plan to pull it off.

I like the intent behind meditate—it's easier to fall into than full/empty-hands, but harder to maintain. In practice, it's super awkward on effects that happen when you play a card, because that throws off your math: "Cool, I've got three cards and one rewards me for that. I'll play it. Oh, now I have two cards."

I don't have a strong sense of what Homelands Revisited is about. The name allows it to piggyback on Homelands, but that set doesn't have a strong sense of what it's about either...

No critique here is harsh. It's how we learn. I was leaning too heavily on the set name carrying the intent here, when it used some uncommon terminology. Nich Grayson did some set remixes, including a fascinating one for DGM, where he kept some cards and card titles, but redesigned the set knowing now what we wish we knew then. The vision for this was more, what if we were designing Homelands today as a stand-alone draftable expansion from scratch. So it's not a "return to Homelands" so much. That's what Joven and Serra Angel were pointing to.

Meditate critique is all valid, and worth teasing out. There's a solid GU-centric mechanic in there, and it's worth developing.

Vital Bracers 1Artifact - Equipment (C)Equipped creature gets +1/+1Untap equipped creature of it is tapped at the beginning of every main phase.Heirloom - Elf (Whenever an elf creature enters or leaves the battlefield, you may attach Vital Bracers to a creature you control.)

Gigglinging Madness 1BREnchantment (R)At the beginning of combat on your turn, put a +1/-1 counter on target creature. That creature gains haste until end of turn.

El Kal, The Pure- Uncommon? Really? This feels rare at least. Vigilance and the block requirement make a ton of sense. Excelsior is... interesting. I totally buy the flavor match but I'd have some concerns about the gameplay, especially with the indestructible version. Also, flying + indestructible + double strike is a weirdly specific combination for a mechanic that will (presumably) appear on many cards, including cards that don't normally get access to those abilities.

Feline Felon- Rarity? In a vacuum I'd guess uncommon. Skulk is not a super-liked mechanic but it does a good job of capturing the "criminal" feel. GW seems like a strange combination to put this in-- GB instead, maybe?

Vital Bracers- Texty for a common. I guess Heirloom replaces Equip? Interesting if so. For the second ability I'd prefer something simpler, like vigilance. Not totally buying the tribal angle here. Also, modern tribal designs usually try to have some impact even if you have no other creatures of that type.

Giggling Madness- Mechanically very interesting. The main reason nothing like this has been printed before is that it's hard to do a set where +1/-1 counters are the only kind of counter. I'd be interested to see what that would look like.

Overall- I see the top-down-ness, but I'm not getting a cohesive mechanical theme somehow. Even the most top-down blocks go for graveyard matters or enchantments matter or something. I have no idea what matters in this set, though if I had to guess I'd say it has a Voltron theme.

Vital Bracers 1Artifact - Equipment (C)Equipped creature gets +1/+1Untap equipped creature at the beginning of each of your main phases.Heirloom - Elf (Whenever an elf creature enters or leaves the battlefield, you may attach Vital Bracers to a creature you control.)

Gigglinging Madness 1BREnchantment (R)At the beginning of combat on your turn, put a +1/-1 counter on target creature. That creature gains haste until end of turn.

@lpaulsen the overlying theme is "power matters", which plays into the Voltron Equipment ugr guild and the double strike of excelsior. It has a tension with the skulk mechanic and the +1/-1 counters of br. The are also some tribal elements, mostly elves as Green is the color overlapping the two wedges and they'd fit more of the average civilian trope.

I don't know if a set needs an explicit power threshold mechanic in order for that theme to come through. Like Amonkhet was able to do a graveyard matters theme without Threshold or Delve. All four cards deal with power (El Kal and Felon really explicitly) is that still not apparent enough?

Oh, cool. OK, firstly, this paints a pretty good picture of the set. I love excelsior, I don't know how it would play, but it's a good way of representing many superheroes, and possibly of secret identities. I tried to come up with superhero mechanics at one point, but I like this more than other things I've seen.

It's not important to quibble about specifics, but Catwoman -- surely she's black? She's ninja-y, she's hedonistic, even when she's doing good, it seems very much "protecting people close to her". Is there a more altruistic version I'm not as familiar with?

I don't get as good an idea of how the set would play. "Power matters" could make sense as a theme, and I agree it doesn't need a *keyword*, but I want an idea of "if I have two common creatures and so do you -- what are they? mooks? minor villains? do they have abilities that tie into the set?"

This is hard! I had to show off morbid, flashback, and DFCs. As much I wanted to show Delver of Secrets, my DFC had to be a werewolf. I really wanted Endless Ranks of the Dead, but we need some creature cards, and Victim of Night communicates the tribal theme and all the monster tribes.

Wow, it is REALLY HARD to distill a set down to four cards, preferably balancing rarity, color, card type, and mechanics, while still showing what the set is about.

Aurora

Weird Neurotic 3U (Common)Creature - WeirdShifting (This card has its even characteristics as long as your life total is even; this card has its odd characteristics as long as your life total is odd.)Even2/4OddU: You gain 1 life if your life total is odd.2/4

Recollection Cache 3GG (Rare)EnchantmentWhenever you gain life, you may put a charge counter on Recollection Cache.1G, Sacrifice Recollection Cache: Return up to X target cards from your graveyard to your hand, where X is the number of charge counters on Recollection Cache. Exile Recollection Cache.

Shifting is interesting. How do you imagine those cards being laid out?

I'm disappointed that Weird Neurotic has the same P/T in both states… and that its P/T aren't both odd in its odd state.

Amaranthine Monk changes your life total, but doesn't give you any control over your shifting creatures? That's a missed opportunity!

Wait, so if Hellbringer hits my face, I lose 12? 20 if you give it +2/+2?

You've well communicated this set has a life theme. I think that could be an excellent sub-theme for a set, even a major sub-theme. I'm skeptical you could make a whole set focused on life. As a designer, I really want to see what this set is doing to prevent games from going super long due to all the life gain; deathlink is clearly helping there, but does it only appear on broken mythics like Hellbringer? Are most games of Aurora won through deck attrition, and are there milling cards to help speed that process along?

Again, it;s super-hard to show in four cards. Lifegain is very much THE theme here. It carries the set and is the entire and sole point of the set's existence. If I cannot make a whole set focused on life, I'll scrap this entire set/world. But in playtests there's enough clever sideways tools that games are absolutely decided by combat -- more prone to larger swings, but not to stalling out. There's no alternate win condition stuff.

Deathlink appears on a handful of cards (currently 5). They're not all broken mythics. It plays a lot like double strike, except more evasive reach less combat dominance. So it doesn't appear a ton on commons (one in the set currently). I imagine it as evergreen in black.

I sort of doubt Hellbringer is broken. I mean, for one more mana and an easier cost, you get INFINITY POWER. ;) But I'd be curious to find out.

There are plenty of cards to shift the Weirds. Many of them do change P/T but too much of that at common creates complexity issues for combat. This one doesn't shift P/T because it has OCD and wants everything to be even! No odd numbers -- it's neurotic! (Sorry for the 3 in the mana, but the CMC is even at least!)

Amaranthine Monk doesn't shift Weirds because (1) the Weirds are in UR, (2) it makes it more appealing to other lifegain decks and won't get stolen by Weird decks in draft as much, (3) many other cards, especially in UR, do shift the Weirds, (4) sometimes you want to trigger lifegain triggers like Imbue but like your Weirds how they already are.

If I could upload an image, I could show pictures of Weird formatting. Pretty much like Level Up.

Show the Weird most representative of Weirds, not the exception. Also, Neurotic Wierd isn't communicating that it prefers even numbers: Both its abilities specifically call out and reward odd life totals.

Put another, less silly, way, Hellbringer is a 6 mana creature with no card advantage, has a hard mana cost, doesn't kill in one shot, and dies to everything. It's not even THAT amazing at combat. I'm not even convinced it's *good.* For a while it cost 5. It's just Timmy because you can dream on it so hard.

NOTE: UGH I hate this platform. I need to be able to constantly edit and re-edit my posts. That's how I normally post -- put it up, find an error, edit, repeat.

This Weird IS representative of Weirds. Most of the common ones don't change P/T. It's about 60/40. Also, maybe the wording needs work, but the game play is that this guy's ONE ability is that if your life total is odd he rounds it up to even. How should I communicate more that he wants to make things even?

"Weird Neurotic 3U (Common)Creature - WeirdShifting (This card has its even characteristics as long as your life total is even; this card has its odd characteristics as long as your life total is odd.)Even2/4OddU: You gain life until your life total is even.2/4"

That's SUCH a strange wording, but the point was I need to prevent stacking shenanigans. It has to check on resolution or else use a wording like this one.

Every color is getting at least some lifegain in this set. Even red gets a lifelink creature. It's needed to make the set work. Weirds are not in white, and this one is flavored as "evening out" your life total and doesn't play as a source of significant life gain. I don't see it as a huge problem in small moderation. Compare giving life loss to white in sets like New Phyrexia.

Power of Life and Death 4BB (Uncommon)SorceryCreatures you control get +1/+0 and gain lifelink and deathlink until end of turn. (Damage dealt by a creature with deathlink also causes each opponent to lose that much life.)

Weird Resonator 2UR (Uncommon)Creature - WeirdShifting (This card has its even characteristics as long as your life total is even; this card has its odd characteristics as long as your life total is odd.)EvenFlyingWhenever Weird Resonator shifts to even, Weird creatures you control get +0/+2 until end of turn.2/2OddFlyingWhenever Weird Resonator shifts to odd, Weird creatures you control get +2/+0 until end of turn.2/2

Vivisynth Creeper 2G (Common)Creature - Plant BeastHexproofImbue - Vivisynth Creeper enters the battlefield with two +1/+1 counters on it if you gained life this turn.2/1

Yeah, the second set is a lot better. I wasn't sure at first, but when you described how your set worked, it was really interesting! The fact that you've playtested it and it works well is really positive, I found it hard to tell how well the various life stuff would work in practice, but if it plays reasonably well I have a lot of faith in it.

Have you posted more about it online anywhere? I'm interested in how different colours work. U/R weirds make a lot of sense. Presumably W (and G?) care about lifegain. Etc.

I love the weirds. I wasn't sure if it was too complicated, but it's the simplest example of a two-state thing, and now I'm quite excited by them. I don't think this is quite how you did them, but I imagined the text box divided vertically, even rules and p/t on the left, odd on the right. Although your other card made me realise they could be represented as triggers (either of the state change, or "when this attacks, if your life total is even, it gets +1/+0) so you don't print different P/T on them. Although printing different P/T would be nicer if you can!

Thanks! The set is a bit in flux right now as I tweak and update everything in prep for GDS3 (I've worked on this set since GDS2), so it's not perfectly balanced in rarity, etc., and there are some holes. But if you can suggest a good way to share it/put it online, I'm happy to do so. I'm a sucker for feedback and would be glad to further violate the point of this exercise and discuss more of these cards.

I like the idea of splitting the Weirds' text box vertically, but I don't think I have a template in Magic Set Editor to do that. The Weirds can, and in several cases do, definitely have different P/T on them in each state (as many Level Up creatures do).

For instance, one of the simplest common ones can't decide if it's 2U for a 1/4 (Even) or for a 4/1 (Odd).

I simply got a lot of feedback long ago saying that it created too much board complexity and feel-bad on-board tricks if numerous creatures were shifting P/T at instant speed during combat, so I should probably keep that aspect mostly out of common. So I found other things to play with at low rarity, like ETB/LTB triggers.

Putting online: I'm not sure, I don't have a very good solution. Maybe start by writing up the general themes if you haven't already, somewhere people can see -- people are more likely to have opinions on that than a whole set where they don't know how it fits together.

( www.magicmultiverse.net/cardsets is Alex's website that lets you design cards online. I think it can import from MSE but I'm not sure. There are probably other websites as well designed for sharing MSE sets.)

Yeah, that makes sense -- stick with what you can physically do for now, you can imagine how they'd be templated differently if you like.

Ah, I see. Yeah, you're right about the weirds, that if the common ones change p/t because of combat it's way too confusing to track. But it's also just such a compelling example of the mechanic to have 3/2 vs 2/3 or similar, a mechanic shines best when it's interesting on just a vanilla. I don't know if any of these would help, I expect you've considred them already, but random thoughts:

* Instead of any ability, keyword "gets +1/+1 if even" and add extras on top of that* Do the weirds reward switching even/odd? or staying even? Or being odd? or a mix? Which of those plays best?* Is there any way of doing p/t without getting confusing mid combat? e.g. instead of a fixed p/t have a "+1/+1 UEOT when this attacks/blocks".* Usually fixed ability or usually "when switch"?

I don't know what might work, it depends what's most compelling when you play with them. But I hope something works well.

I'll look into solutions. If you want to chat directly by email or something I'll share some stuff that way.

On Weirds and P/T: There are currently 13 cards with Shifting in the set (I'd say "Weirds" but there's a land and a spell too). Of them, 6 are common, 4 uncommon, and 3 mythic.

Among the commons, one in red (6/3 can't attack and 3/6 can't block) and one in blue (1/4 vs. 4/1) shift power/toughness. One in red and one in blue have Even enters the battlefield and matching Odd leaves the battlefield triggers (the red one deals 1 damage to a target; the blue one draws a card). One in red and one in blue have life fixing either only to even (blue; Weird Neurotic above) or only to odd (red; this one damages each player whose life total is even).

Among the uncommons, one is sort of a modal counterspell that either counters (even) or copies (odd) and instant/sorcery. It might have rules issues as currently worded, but I like the idea. One is red and shifts between 4/2 unblockable (yes, a bleed; could be menace but then it steps on Hellbringer just slightly) and 3/3 double strike. One is a blue-red Weird lord and has a Shifting trigger (Weird Resonator, see above). And one is a 2/2 blue-red dork with tap abilities, either looting (even) or pinging (odd).

Among the mythics, there's a blue-red dragon that shifts P/T (4/8 or 7/5) and nasty combat abilities. There's a land that was originally quite broken and thus still needs work. And there's a blue hexproof indestructible guy (3/3) that gets bigger (5/5) if Odd but also sacrifices at the beginning of the end step if Odd.

So that, in sum total, is what I've done with the Weirds so far. General themes: They play in the overlaps of blue/red abilities, of which there are several. Now that looting has gone red, I may push some of that onto a Weird somewhere. Odd abilities are generally "redder" and more aggressive. Even abilities are generally "bluer" and more defensive and/or evasive. Several reward being able to really control the toggle and flip multiple times. Weird Resonator is the only one that does this "loudly" with a Shifting trigger, though. Almost all Weirds keep the same *sum* of power plus toughness when they shift, to show that they're shifting, not growing. Compare Frostburn Weird for sort of inspiration on that point. The current awkward exception is that Hexproof Indestructible one. Maybe I should make it, like, 0/10 when even, 5/5 when odd. I dunno.

Oh, thank you for the offer! Alas, that's probably about all I have to say, I'll leave further updates to you. But maybe get a blog or a forum where you can talk online about the set in more detail, if that would help?

Angry Peasant RWCreature- Human Peasant CSmall creatures you control get +1/+0(A small creature is a non-token creature with base power and toughness 1/1)1/1

Hand of the Tax Collector 2BBCreature- GiantMonstrous 3 1GGHand of the Tax Collector has lifelink and trample as long as it is monstrous3/3

Battle Scholar 2UUCreature- Wizard RWhen Battle Scholar attacks it memorises an instant or sorcery from a graveyard (to memorise a card exile it)When Battle Scholar dies it casts all spell it has memorised without paying their mana costs3/3

Plotting Conflict 3UBEnchantment MAll creatures gain death-touchWhenever a creature deals combat damage to a player it’s controller may exile a creature from his or her graveyard and create a token copy of that create except it is a black horror.U: each player draws a card then discards a card

Angry Peasant- "Small" creatures is a neat idea. Some precedent in Sigil Captain. I'm not in love with the non-token clause-- seems like having 1/1 tokens would be a lot of the point, and if you don't want it to be, then don't create them. Also not sure this is a great choice for common, since it's a team-pumping effect with some confusing rules baggage.

Hand of the Tax Collector- Off-color monstrosity? Sure. Uncommon I assume. I'm getting that this set has a multicolor theme and also a big-creature, small-creature conflict with an "oppression" angle.

Battle Scholar- Since memorize is literally just exile, this would probably be templated as an ability word, not a keyword action. But I can definitely get behind "multi-imprint" and this is a good choice of a clean, exciting rare design. Not clear on whether it indicates a theme (a third faction??) or is just a cool one-off card.

Plotting Conflict- So both players' creatures gain deathtouch and "saboteur: embalm a thing"? Intriguing. Not sure the symmetry is doing enough for the design, though I like that it makes life awkward for control decks. I get the impression that there's supposed to be some top-down flavor here, but if so, I'm missing it.

Overall- Small and monster factions is a neat idea. Non-guildy multicolor set is another neat idea. Battle Scholar is a neat card. I get the impression this is a semi-dystopian world, but not much beyond that. In general I'd like to see more of a unified theme coming through-- I have no idea what your set's tagline would be.

Deputize- Cool and exciting design even in a vacuum. As part of a prison world it's definitely a hit. Good choice.

Visions of Freedom- Makes sense. A natural plotline on a prison plane is people wanting to break out. Again the design is clean and exciting. But it worries me a little that, two cards in, I have no evidence about the mechanical identity.

Lead to the Cairns- Why would you want to subvert someone? Doesn't it help them? Or is there a mechanic that really wants you to fill your opponent's graveyard? "Subvert" as a keyword action is a great idea, but you need to find a better action or show me why this one matters.

Pensive Planner- Reverse renown? That's going to be a hard sell, though I do like the flavor. What about doing it as an upside instead? For example, "Unknown- The first time this creature attacks, EFFECT". I also learn from this card that the set uses -1/-1 counters, which seems like a solid choice.

Overall- You've sold me on the worldbuilding vision and your ability to do great designs within that vision. The problem is the mechanical themes. You have two keywords that capture good resonant concepts, but the implementations are going to need a lot of fixing up and fleshing out.

Izilx Dragonfly 4RRCreature - Insect (R)FlyingR: ~ gets +1/+0 until end of turn.Metamorphosis 4RR (4RR, T: Put a number of +1/+1 counters on this creature equal to its power. Metamorphose only as a sorcery.)4/4

Foliage Forager GCreature - Elf Ranger (C)Swarm (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may pay 2. If you do, search your library for a creature with converted mana cost of one and put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle.)1/1

Undersoil Colony 1WEnchantment (U)Tapped creatures you control with one toughness are indestructible.

Chitiknight WWCreature - Human Knight (U)First strike~ has indestructible while blocking or being blocked by Insects.2/2

Latrodex Widow 3BBCreature - Spider Shaman (U)DeathtouchB, Sacrifice a creature with one toughness: Put a +1/+1 counter on ~.Metamorphosis 4BB (4BB, T: Put a number of +1/+1 counters on this creature equal to its power. Metamorphose only as a sorcery.)2/5

Izlix Dragonfly- It bothers me that metamorphosis can happen more than once, for both flavor and balance reasons. Also, this doesn't seem quite splashy enough to be a rare.

Foliage Forager- Fetch a Death's Shadow? Wild Nacatl? Delver of Secrets? Don't mind if I do. A whole mechanic for tutoring things onto the battlefield, even 1-mana things, seems very scary and not very common. Could we just make 1/1s or something instead?

Undersoil Colony- So 1 CMC matters, but 1 toughness also matters? That's going to get confusing. Between the two I think 1 toughness is likely to be the better one. This card does a good job of showing off the cool things you can do with it.

Larodex Widow- Another metamorphosis card that can easily get out of hand. But... it also cares about 1 toughness? There's some tension there. I'd rather have seen a new aspect of the set, like Chitiknight, as opposed to rehashes of two themes that other cards showed off better.

Overall- Bugs. Big bugs and little bugs and swarms of bugs. Got it. Without Chitiknight I don't have much sense of the set's conflict, unless it's a competition between Latrodex Widow and Izlix Dragonfly to see which one can get more absurdly huge. The 1-toughness and swarm themes seem more promising.

I love bug people world! Good point about not being sure of the conflict, everyone is bugs, but I'm not quite sure who's against whom. But the mechanics do a great job of capturing, giant scary dragonflies, endless swarms, colonies of 1/1 creatures, etc.

I agree Metamorphosis might need to be tweaked, but I really want something like that. Maybe the question is, how should it be different to Monstrous? (Or should it be the same with a different name?)

Yeah, I wanted a giant Insect mechanic that wasn't Monstrosity... but maybe I should have just gone for Monstrosity! I loved the idea of doubling your creature's size.

I wanted the main mechanical tension of the set to be about size -- giant insects, and tiny humans. It doesn't carry through these four cards super well, but I wanted the Insects to be roaming the world, wrecking stuff and getting bigger, while the bipedal races were forced to live in basically ant colonies underground and take on insect-like behaviors.

Another option would be to have the bipedals take on attributes of the giant insects a la Dragons of Tarkir, so you have giant spiders and the people who work with them/admire them, and so on for various kinds of insects.

Yeah, Swarm is developmentally problematic. I liked the idea of switching 1-drops on their heads and making them more appealing for a deck, while also making them worse top-decks later in a game. I think some kind of token-making mechanic is probably better though; agreed.

I think if I were to go forward with a set like this, I'd probably just grab Monstrosity, make Swarm some kind of token-making mechanic, and have more insect/bipedal tension cards like Chitiknight.

And this: "I think if I were to go forward with a set like this, I'd probably just grab Monstrosity, make Swarm some kind of token-making mechanic, and have more insect/bipedal tension cards like Chitiknight" preempts all my major advice.

I will say that bugs are normally tiny, and I was sure the 1-CMC/toughness-matters was there to care about bugs, but apparently all the bugs are huge? If so, why do we care about little things? Don't make the humans adopt bug-like behaviors, then it's bugs-that-aren't-bugs-because-they're-huge-VS-bugs-that-aren't-bugs-because they're humans: We don't get a proper conflict OR a proper bug!

Mage-Ring is printable, and iconic of Vryn. (Maybe a stronger uncommon would make more of an impact?)

Morph is fine, but you really have to make a case for bringing it back because of its complexity cost. I like "ETB or turned face up" but that's not enough alone. Prodigy is a neat reprint, especially casting it on Vryn, but I really want to see morph do something new.

Sparkmage is disappointing. I want the effect that's limited by mana and spells to be as good as Prodigal Pyromancer, not worse.

I get that Vryn is a tech-ish plane with wizards and thieves. Good representation!

I thought about making Sparkmage with only {R} as the activation cost, but maybe I should have, even with prowess. Maybe if I upped the cmc?

I really felt that Prodigy was the reprint that wants to be in vryn, (since there's tons of wizards and we already have a voidmage discipline present there), which necessitates morph being reprinted as well. Since there are a couple of factions that actively spy on one another and magic is fairly rampant, it felt natural to have morph.

I thought about adding a different mechanic (recharge) that will regrowth when you cast a spell of a higher cmc, (similar to soulshift), but morph was taking up too much complexity space.

Mage-Ring- Flavor thumbs-up. Not sure about manaflare, though. It's interesting, nonintuitive, and tough to evaluate. (Also probably wants to be templated as a trigger.) Most of the time it's basically an activated ability, but when I want to activate it more I'm going to be annoyed by the limitation. Not super resonant either.

Ampryn Agent- Morph? Sure. But I wish you'd taken morph to a new place (I've long been wanting off-color morph costs) rather than re-concepting it again with no mechanical update. Flavor-wise I get that subterfuge is a major thing on Vryn, which seems reasonable.

Voidmage Prodigy- Good reprint find, and tells me a lot about the creative and mechanical feel of the plane. With this in your four cards, you probably don't need Ampryn Agent-- the Prodigy represents morph better. Also potentially a hint at Wizard tribal.

Trovian Sparkmage- More Wizards, more Manaflare. OK. Not sure what new information I'm getting here, except that magic on Vryn is a big deal.

Overall- Vryn is a cool plane concept and WotC will surely do it at some point. But in these four cards I don't feel like I got a complete look at the set. What's the tagline / conflict / mechanical identity / overarching theme? Manaflare and Morph are both reasonable mechanics, if unexcitingly executed, but with these four cards I get the impression they're the only things going on in the set, and that's disappointing.

Fetid Tatterwings BB1 (Uncommon)Creature – Afflicted BatFlyingMutate: Whenever any counters are placed on Fetid Tatterwings, it gains lifelink and menace until the end of the turn.3/1

Warned by the Wind U1 (Common)InstantReturn target creature you control to its owner's hand.Retaliate: If Warned by the Wind is on the stack in response to an opponent's non-creature spell, you may tap another target creature. That creature doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.

Rashma, Angel of Purity WW4 (Rare)Legendary Creature—AngelFlying, Vigilance.While Rashma, Angel of Purity is on the battlefield, afflicted creatures lose all abilities (even when not on the battlefield). 4/4

I'm still kind of nailing down the mechanics themselves and I'm betting that the flavor of "retaliate" looks like it doesn't belong with the other abilities.

Retaliate isn't great for common because it uses terminology we don't expect most players to know, though it could probably be templated to avoid that.

Reave could be fun.

Mutate and Reave seem like they want to belong to different blocks, because their flavor seems entirely unrelated and their gameplay is very similar (both are effects that trigger when you do something you need another card to make happen).

Rashma needs to answer the question of what happens when a creature with */* loses the ability that sets its P/T.

I'm not seeing a through-line between 'overgrowth,' mutate, retaliate, reave, and angels/afflicted. What is the theme of this set?

It all started off with a through experiment: What if a powerful green/white entity or plainswalker were an villain, or at least the antagonist? (Also, whether there could be a blue/black "hero," which I'm still trying to figure out)

That eventually lead me to the idea of a powerful green/white plainswalker taking control of a plane and driving out the darkest/blackest influences (so no demons or vampires in the set). But she becomes so obsessed that the idea that she's beating back evil "death" forces that she loses it and actually part of her understanding that death is part of the natural life cycle. Therefore she's forcing this plane to grow out of control, while at the same time trying to keep any dark forces from gaining traction there.

Except there's a big dramatic irony undercutting her that she's too mad and obsessed now to realize: Uncontrolled growth leads to disease and the mutations that she sees as a threat. Afflictions and mutations her obsession with all things growing (even as she fights even harder to kill these things). Reave is intended to be a consequence of things not being truly allowed to "leave" the cycle of life by dying. Storywise the hermits represent mages who have fled up into the mountains to try to get away from the overgrowth. And there's a blue/white faction that has to live on a flotilla of boats because all the wild growth has made land life too dangerous (either through creature mutations or spreading diseases).

Originally retaliate was an even more complicated mechanic that was like if "Storm" were limited to the stack it was on. It was intended to demonstrate the idea that even magic itself was growing and exploding out of control in unexpected ways.

Ultimately I think "retaliate" is a mechanic I think I'll have to kill and maybe just resurrect an existing keyword mechanic like replicate or overload that fits the world better.

Welcome!This is mostly very sweet. Industrial Oppression theme seems clear.The rune counters make me wonder why they're not energy, especially given the set's thematic similarity to Kaladesh. The attack-and-get-a-counter thing is also being done by accelerate. Can you consolidate those two mechanics?

Thanks, Jay.The rune counters were inspired more by experience counters than energy, in that the cards that care about it just care about what's been accumulated rather than spending them - lower rarities would hit bonuses at certain thresholds, while higher rarities might have fully scaling effects. I could potentially see it as a revisiting of energy, though.Accelerate is always an attack trigger, whereas different cards offer different way to get rune counters. This creature is probably part of a common cycle that generate a rune on attack, but I can see where that could lead to confusion.

Search This Blog

About Us

We met as competitors and collaborators in the second Great Designer Search. After the contest was over, we decided we still had things to say about designing Magic: the Gathering. So we started a blog.